Benefit cheat - but family member - help?

miserly_mum

When I was a single mum a few years ago and on income support i had to go to an interview every 6 months with a one parent advisor.

At the time I had 3 school age children and 2 under 4's. Everytime I went she did the usual calculations and advised me that although it was up to me but financially I would be considerably worse off going back to work. I knew that as i'd already tried it. Bear with me here........

Eventually I got a new advisor who gave me some very interesting info.

Basically if you are a single mum on benefits and want to work but like me would be financially worse off there was a solution. You can register as a child minder and look after a child in your own home AND keep the first £80 a week without it affecting your benefit.There were even start up grants for safety equipment etc. £80 was the figure at the time but that was about 5 years ago so would probably be more now.

I thought this was too good to be true but she explained it was to help women like me keep our toe in the water of employment ie not going for a job in the future and having years of being unemployed as that puts prospective employers off.It also keeps your pension contributes up to date as you would be classed as employed.

She also explained that there was a real shortage of childminders and this meant a lot of ladies who wanted to work couldn't because they had no child care.

I think basically its a win win situation for the Government as the child minders aren't classed as unemployed anymore and neither are the Mums whose kids they look after.

I can't understand why it's not more widly advertised as it would be an ideal solution for many ladies like the OP's SIL. My advisor called it a "well kept secret"

RadoJo

I think I would support option of encouraging the SIL to work - it might be a paltry amount that she's earning, and it might be that it doesn't effect her benefits, but we don't know.
What I do know is that the only way to resolve the ongoing problems with this country's benefit system is to stop breeding more generations of children who know no better than to leave education early and go on the dole. There are kids coming up to legal adulthood who don't even think that they could get a job let alone have the ambition required to make it happen.
For the sake of her kids who will learn how to 'get by' instead of experiencing their full potential I would address the matter, but not necessarily shop her without attempting to help out first.

janninew

kaya wrote: »

wow, so many self rightious grasses who would cause loss to there own family, unbelievable and very very shamefull, let he who is without sin.......................

Some of us on here can be 'self rightious grasses' as we are the tax payers paying for this women! At the end of the day it is stealing - end of!! In my eyes it cannot be jutisified.

BeenieCat

janninew wrote: »

Some of us on here can be 'self rightious grasses' as we are the tax payers paying for this women! At the end of the day it is stealing - end of!! In my eyes it cannot be jutisified.

You'd be paying your taxes regardless.
I don't know why people get so worked up about it, the money wouldn't benefit you if it wasn't being claimed by the unemployed, it'd probably go to the MP's pay packets :rolleyes:.

RadoJo

BeenieCat wrote: »

You'd be paying your taxes regardless.
I don't know why people get so worked up about it, the money wouldn't benefit you if it wasn't being claimed by the unemployed, it'd probably go to the MP's pay packets :rolleyes:.

I would be happy to pay more tax if I thought that it was genuinely supporting those who need it - I don't think anyone here thinks that they would be paying less tax if people didn't defraud the benefit system, more that those who are in need would be able to expect a decent standard of living, and those capable of supporting themselves would do so.
Apart from anything, when someone defrauds the benefits system, it's not only the money they are getting which comes from somewhere, but the money they are not contributing to the pot by choosing to remain out of work.

janninew

BeenieCat wrote: »

You'd be paying your taxes regardless.
I don't know why people get so worked up about it, the money wouldn't benefit you if it wasn't being claimed by the unemployed, it'd probably go to the MP's pay packets :rolleyes:.

If everybody lied to get extra benefit the country would be on its knees! What makes it right that she gets away with it? I would rather be an honest 'grass' than a thief. I can't believe people can condone stealing.

BeenieCat

Oh i'm not condoning it, at all. Since i had my DS at 17 i've worked constantly, payingf or childcare and yet still have nothing to show for it. My family member on the other hand has a much nicer house, better car, eats all brand named food, all clothes from Next etc etc.... and has never worked since having their child. They get their child support on the side, which is about 50 a week like OP, and it pees me off no end!!

When my OH moved in my family told me to 'leave it a few months' before declaring it, but i didn't have the balls, i rang everyone straight away and did it all properly, in a way i wish i'd had the balls to do what they said but i know there's too many people to grass you up and it's not worth it IMO.

miserly_mum

BeenieCat wrote: »

When my OH moved in my family told me to 'leave it a few months' before declaring it, but i didn't have the balls, i rang everyone straight away and did it all properly, in a way i wish i'd had the balls to do what they said but i know there's too many people to grass you up and it's not worth it IMO.

Thats what OH and I did. Once our tax credits were sorted we weren't that much worse off financially than if i'd just held on to my benefits and "never let on"

We certainly wouldn't have been that much better off to make it worth taking the risk of being done for benefit fraud.

RoxieW

Lol at the tinned spaghetti being neglectful! If that is the case then remove my children from me at once.

I'll bet if I looked through your cupboards I'd find some processed/junk/high fat/high sugar/high salt/convenience foods. If not I'd worry that the children in the strict food environment would grow up fussy eaters or rebels who binge eat mcdonalds and turkey twizzlers,

BeenieCat

I don't think it's bad to give your kid tinned spaghetti but i do think it's the height of laziness to give them it for breakfast on a regular basis.

It costs £2.15 for 48 weetabix exact replica in Morrisons and £1 for 4 pints of milk.
Those tins, usually tiny - cost about 60p a time don't they? Such a waste of money. I don't know if i'd accept a fussy child as an excuse, they shouldn't be pandered to.

However i will say i've never encountered such fussyness and agree it would be tempting to give them whatever they wanted so they were eating. I just go by the theory that they won't let themselves starve, but i know it's not always that simple. I've never had a fussy pet either, my mother's cat won't eat certain brands, what's that all about? Lol